is playing against the bots good practice?

If you have the opportunity play against real opponents. Bots nowadays play very similarly to humans but their style it is still somewhat strange.

I do not recommend taking back moves. Chess teaches you to think ahead and take responsibility for your moves. If you make a mistake carry on with the game and see how your opponent trys to win. This way you can learn how to win those positions. You should still think and play the best moves to learn how to make your opponents job more difficult. Sometimes that way you may even make a draw or even win.

probably not, but i still play with the bots for fun!

Of course

It depends on what you mean.

Is it better than not playing at all? Certainly.

Is it better than playing against players at or slightly above your current level? No.

Is it better than playing against someone significantly stronger? Eh, maybe.

In terms of improvement, it is better to play against humans (specifically ones who are slightly above - ~200 points - your level). Computers are not 800-rated or 1000-rated. They are 3800-rated with random mistakes thrown in to decrease their level. Most humans are not going to play tactically perfect games and then hang their queen out of nowhere. Bots do that all the time (when they are set to play at lower strengths).

bruh im almost 400 elo idk how to play

How strange. What's the point of take backs. I get it in puzzles. But in games against an engine, the point is to lose the majority of the time. Then see why and do something about it. in the form of study or Lichess practice.

If you are beating the engine without really struggling, then you aren't really learning anything. And yes it's because of the randomness. Engines are tools to use properly. So a good question might be "what are the best ways to use engines?" Or what are the advantages.

So the standard line is often telling people to play 200 rating points above yours against humans. Well just how does that actually work at lower levels. Who plays 200 under and why at lower levels. I mean we can grasp that playing 200 above requires someone to play 200 below, right? Who does that with infinite time between moves? Novice players doing what they need to do to exercise good habits need to take time between moves. Lots of it. Now just how well is that received here?

Human vs human games are usually very time restricted. And I feel that's a LOT more important than human vs engine. Rapid teaches slop at lower levels. It just does. At lower levels there simply isn't time for a developing player to do exactly what all players should do. Find checks, captures and attacks for both player positions. After one is very good, then these things happen much faster for a player. So the novice player who is actually doing what makes him better when playing rapid human games will just irritate the 200 higher player who then begins abusing ...and the rest is plainly evident. The meaningless vortex of nasty is both predictable and observable.

The randomness of engine handicap systems really isn't a problem if the engine is still beating you. If it's beating you, then your errors are clearly rising above the noise floor of the engine randomness. And bots with suggestions? Only in very small doses with mindfulness. Otherwise you will just train yourself to math horse the hints.

But telling novices to just keep on playing quick games at low levels on Chess.com? What? That's like telling people to throw a brick straight up and stand under it. Predictable result and observable result in the people saying they a stuck at 600 or whatever.

Never ever play the bots they will beat u somany games u will forget how to to play chess

Yes, but only play strong bots. The goal is not to win or draw: you will not, but rather to learn.

I enjoy playing the bots. It’s an easy and convenient way of playing a game with no time restrictions and being able to focus on whatever area of study you want to. My aim is to get to the expert level bots. I think I’m two away, but I don’t allow myself to move to the next bot until I’ve beaten the current one three times in a row. They may be programmed to make random errors (although I suspect the algorithms are somewhat better than this) but they still play a mean game and are hard to beat at my level.

Is it just me, or are human opponents harder to play here than the Chess.com bots?

It's rather strange, but I feel like my human opponents perform at a strangely high level. I've faced multiple cheaters in the past, and time and time again, chess.com has told me, "your rating has been refunded due to an opponent's violation of the fair play rules."

I just play them for fun!

A chess bot is programmed to play a specific repertoire, with a specific style, which becomes exploitable.

There are number of bots in which I know specifically how to beat them, because they have a programmed style, and I know which pieces to trade/take. Nelson is a great example of this. Once you learn how to exploit Nelson, he plays more like an 800.

Humans are not like this. Where a bot is programmed to play at a certain level continuously, humans are all over the place.

A humans elo tells you about history, and the games they've played in the past, and a bots elo tells you about how they will play in the future. This is a major distinction between humans and computers, and it shouldn't be overlooked.

A 1500 rated bot is static, and is not programmed to learn and get better. It plays at the same skill level all the time. However, humans rated 1500 will regularly have stronger games than their elo suggests. Especially at lower rating levels, when humans are learning how to play the game.

So yes, I would always suspect 1500 rated humans would be more challenging than 1500 rated bots, because I never expect a 1500 rated bot to play a game at a 1750 skill level, and humans do that all the time. Obviously a human rated 1500 could also play a game at a 1200 skill level on a bad day, but on average, humans are on an upward trajectory, until they plateau.

My short answer:
Is it good practice? Well, of course it is (if you're playing a bot stronger than you and you don't take back moves). Playing ANY game of chess requires you to think, to observe, and to plan. You draw upon your past knowledge and, if you analyze afterwards, store up a little bit of knowledge for the future. That can't possibly be bad for you. It's like the continuing debate in the gym over free weights vs. machines. The purists tout the free weights, of course. But those on the machines are exercising and getting stronger too. What's not to like?
BTW, sometimes, late at night, after a glass of wine or two, it's fun to play a really weak bot and beat the pants off it. You can delude yourself into thinking you're Magnus playing a "lowly" NM.